Valmoria & Anor v Hynes

In a libel action, meaning is determined by the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader reading the publication once, viewed in its context and without over-elaborate analysis. A defendant’s justification must meet the defamatory sting which the words actually convey. A defence alleging only negligence, poor judgment or lack of care cannot justify an imputation of participation in fraud or dishonesty. Publication abroad cannot be claimed in England where the law of the place of publication provides criminal but no civil liability.

The claim concerned three online articles alleging that the claimants, through their business, were involved in a substantial training fraud and had defrauded students. The defendant admitted publication but relied on a case that, at its highest, alleged poor selection and supervision of training providers and failure to warn students about problems.

The court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of the articles, considered the scope of the justification defence, and addressed whether publication to readers in the Philippines could form part of the English libel claim.

1. Meaning. The court applied the principles stated in Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres, described on appeal by Lord Phillips MR as an impeccable synthesis in [2001] EWCA Civ 1263. The relevant question was what the words conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader reading them once. The articles had to be read in context, including the relationship between the three publications and the hyperlink to earlier articles.
2. The first article conveyed that the claimants were involved in the alleged £15 million NVQ training fraud and had participated in defrauding students. The second article conveyed that they were the villains behind the scandal. The third article, read with the earlier articles, conveyed that they were involved in the fraud, deception and systematic theft.
3. Justification. The defendant’s pleaded and evidential case did not assert, and did not begin to establish, that the claimants were parties to fraud or had acted dishonestly. It alleged, at most, that they had selected unreliable providers, failed to identify problems promptly and failed to protect or warn students. That case did not meet the sting of the publications. A justification defence must address the defamatory meaning actually conveyed, rather than a lesser allegation which the defendant intended to prove.
4. Foreign publication. Applying the double actionability rule formulated by Lord Wilberforce in Chaplin v Boys [1971] AC 356, publication in the Philippines could not support a claim in England where the conduct was only criminal under Articles 353 and 355 of the Philippines Revised Criminal Code and did not give rise to civil liability. The claim was therefore confined to publication in England and Wales.
5. The claimants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there was no other compelling reason for a trial. Summary judgment was entered for the claimants for general damages, including aggravated damages if appropriate, to be assessed, but not special damages. A final injunction restrained further publication of allegations that the claimants were parties to the alleged fraud or responsible for defrauding students. The claimants were awarded their costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, and damages assessment was remitted to Master Fontaine.

The judgment records pre-trial reviews and case-management directions in the High Court. No lower-court decision or appeal is stated.